Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Two of the world’s most prestigious science academies say man made climate change is real



easynow

New member
Mar 17, 2013
2,039
jakarta
Two of the world’s most prestigious science academies say there’s clear evidence that humans are causing the climate to change. The time for talk is over, says the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the UK.

The two released a paper, Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, written and reviewed by leading experts in both countries, lays out which aspects of climate change are well understood and where there is still uncertainty and a need for more research.

Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, said:

“We have enough evidence to warrant action being taken on climate change; it is now time for the public debate to move forward to discuss what we can do to limit the impact on our lives and those of future generations.”

NAS President Ralph J. Cicerone said:

“As two of the world’s leading scientific bodies, we feel a responsibility to evaluate and explain what is known about climate change, at least the physical side of it, to concerned citizens, educators, decision makers and leaders, and to advance public dialogue about how to respond to the threats of climate change.”

Carbon dioxide (CO2) has risen to levels not seen for at least 800,000 years, and observational records dating back to the mid-19th century show a clear, long-term warming trend.

The publication explains that measurements that distinguish between the different forms of carbon in the atmosphere provide clear evidence that the increased amount of CO2 comes primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, and discusses why the warming that has occurred along with the increase in CO2 cannot be explained by natural causes such as variations in the Sun’s output.

Many effects of climate change have already become apparent in the observational record, but the possible extent of future impacts needs to be better understood.

For example, while average global sea levels have risen about 20 cm since 1901, and are expected to continue to rise, more research is needed to more accurately predict the size of future sea-level rise.

In addition, the chemical balance of the oceans has shifted toward a more acidic state, which makes it difficult for organisms such as corals and shellfish to form and maintain their shells.

As the oceans continue to absorb CO2, their acidity will continue to increase over the next century, along with as yet undetermined impacts on marine ecosystems and the food web.

Even if greenhouse gas emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to its levels before the industrial era. If emissions continue unabated, future climate changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far, the publication says.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-worlds-top-scientists-take-action-now-on-climate-change-2014-2
 




JetsetJimbo

Well-known member
Jun 13, 2011
944
The problem is that the "mainstream" right in both the UK and US (who would have been considered extremists in most of the 20th century) are so wedded to their swivel-eyed, self-serving small-state ideology that they cannot countenance anything that requires large-scale government action to resolve (this is also why, for example, the response of right-wing governments to floods in New Orleans and the west of England were so inadequate - it's not an ideology that can cope with such disasters, as it is fundamentally opposed to the government action that maintenance of the relevant infrastructure and personnel requires).

So it doesn't really matter what scientists say, the Owen Patersons and Jeremy Clarksons of this world will keep bleating "it's not true" as the waves lap around their necks. And they're going to take the rest of us with them.
 


Gary Leeds

Well-known member
May 5, 2008
1,526
Sounds to me what was being explained there was exactly the same as happened 200 million years ago when siberia was nothing but a pool of lava for 60000 years. This chucked crap into the air, heated the planet by 5 degrees which destroyed the ozone layer and that sent the temperatures up another 5 degrees, the seas turned into massive pools of radioactive acid due to the higher co2 and lack of protection from solar radiation. Basically this just dissolved all crustaceans and wiped out a large percentage of life. Don't see Clarkson being around then :)

Until Professor Hawkins stands up and says it for himself then I will remain undecided that it is entirely man made and not just part of another climate shift that has happened many many times already
 


Stoo82

GEEZUS!
Jul 8, 2008
7,530
Hove
Humans will die out one day. And it will be there weather that does it. 'They' already know the weather will change in the future (as we get closer to the sun, or as the moon drifts away), we will cease to exist. There, I said it.
 


ofco8

Well-known member
May 18, 2007
2,387
Brighton
I expect a number of other academics say the opposite. Earth has been through many climate changes in the past. It is called nature at work.
 




Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,171
Goldstone
“We have enough evidence to warrant action being taken on climate change; it is now time for the public debate to move forward to discuss what we can do to limit the impact on our lives and those of future generations.”
Sounds about right.

I'd like a global agreement on the way countries meet their energy needs. Please.
 


Nibble

New member
Jan 3, 2007
19,238
Of course it's real. I wish organisations would stop announcing this fact and get on with doing summat about it.
 


Nibble

New member
Jan 3, 2007
19,238
I expect a number of other academics say the opposite. Earth has been through many climate changes in the past. It is called nature at work.

No, not a this advanced rate it hasn't. That argument is just nonsense to anyone with the slightest understanding of natural history. Ph Levels in vast oceans such as Earth's should take millennia to alter even the tiniest fraction, not the 200 or so years it's taken to make it impossible for some species to exist in. Wake up man. Evidence is starting to confirm that we cannot afford to be this naïve. Thankfully there are people slightly more intelligent than you working on it. Heavens.
 
Last edited:






RexCathedra

Aurea Mediocritas
Jan 14, 2005
3,499
Vacationland
Scientists. They're only saying that for the money. Do you have any idea how much it costs to go to a climatology conference for three or four days once or twice a year?
Hundreds of pounds. Hundreds.

BP, and Royal Dutch Shell, on the other hand, are providing a disinterested public service.
 


RexCathedra

Aurea Mediocritas
Jan 14, 2005
3,499
Vacationland
- it's not an ideology that can cope with such disasters


That's not true. You cope with them by lowering the top marginal rate of income tax.
(This is also how you respond to war, peace, boils, locusts, and the slaughter of the first-born.)
 




Twinkle Toes

Growing old disgracefully
Apr 4, 2008
11,138
Hoveside
Of course it's real. I wish organisations would stop announcing this fact and get on with doing summat about it.


Bearing in mind the number of people in denial on this thread alone, doing something about it can't come quickly enough.
 


Nibble

New member
Jan 3, 2007
19,238
Bearing in mind the number of people in denial on this thread alone, doing something about it can't come quickly enough.

Quite. The denial is understandable and corporations and governments have ZERO to gain in their lifetime by doing anything about it. Since most large scale money makers only actually think in terms of the period they can actively make money, between 40-70 years they have no interest in sorting it. It's a shambles.
 


Twinkle Toes

Growing old disgracefully
Apr 4, 2008
11,138
Hoveside
Quite. The denial is understandable and corporations and governments have ZERO to gain in their lifetime by doing anything about it. Since most large scale money makers only actually think in terms of the period they can actively make money, between 40-70 years they have no interest in sorting it. It's a shambles.

Bingo.
 




Don Quixote

Well-known member
Nov 4, 2008
8,355
Humans will die out one day. And it will be there weather that does it. 'They' already know the weather will change in the future (as we get closer to the sun, or as the moon drifts away), we will cease to exist. There, I said it.

By that time they may have colonised other planets. The whole universe will probably be destroyed ny humanity one day.
 


Nibble

New member
Jan 3, 2007
19,238
Most mineral and resource companies don't give a toss about wiping out entire tribes and their habitats in the quest for money and power why would they give a toss what happens to people that haven't even been born yet? It could make one's blood boil.

Has anyone here ever been inside The Shell building near Southbank? The one with the huge concrete bulldozer blocks on the pavement in front of it like some South African government building? I have a few times. About 30 floors dedicated to draining the world's resources that don't belong to them for profit. One pathetic little appeasing corner of the reception turned over to their "amazing" work on clean fuel run vehicles. It's a model of a clean fuel prototype. Even that is actually a proposed racing car so still looking at ways to turn a profit rather than help repair some of the damage they have wreaked on the planet.
 
Last edited:


Stoo82

GEEZUS!
Jul 8, 2008
7,530
Hove
By that time they may have colonised other planets. The whole universe will probably be destroyed ny humanity one day.

Maybe. We just don't know what the future holds for us. And it scares humanity. We know we are going to all be whipped out one day, and we need to control it somehow. The blame culture if you like. As you said: 'The whole universe will probably be destroyed ny humanity one day'. As if we are the only power, by which I don't mean god, capably of destroying us or anything else in the universe.
 


BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,350
The problem is that the "mainstream" right in both the UK and US (who would have been considered extremists in most of the 20th century) are so wedded to their swivel-eyed, self-serving small-state ideology that they cannot countenance anything that requires large-scale government action to resolve (this is also why, for example, the response of right-wing governments to floods in New Orleans and the west of England were so inadequate - it's not an ideology that can cope with such disasters, as it is fundamentally opposed to the government action that maintenance of the relevant infrastructure and personnel requires).

So it doesn't really matter what scientists say, the Owen Patersons and Jeremy Clarksons of this world will keep bleating "it's not true" as the waves lap around their necks. And they're going to take the rest of us with them.

What political shite.
Yeh;if Milliband had been PM,all would have been ok on the Somerset Levels.
Bollocks!
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,303
Carbon dioxide (CO2) has risen to levels not seen for at least 800,000 years, and observational records dating back to the mid-19th century show a clear, long-term warming trend.

The publication explains that measurements that distinguish between the different forms of carbon in the atmosphere provide clear evidence that the increased amount of CO2 comes primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, and discusses why the warming that has occurred along with the increase in CO2 cannot be explained by natural causes such as variations in the Sun’s output.

yes, but does the CO2 and temperature trend follow? what is accounting for the discrepancy between one being a linear graph and the other fluctuating?
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here